honest questions
Tim Simmons
I have been asking questions and getting some direct responses but I have a
few more. Sure, I could search the net using Google but this is the fine
art ng, right?
What is the definition of fine art?
What are the other categories of art?
If fine art has specific attributes which make it fine art, then any art not
exhibiting those attributes must, by definition, be excluded from the fine
art category, correct?
Thanks and sorry if these are too basic for some.
Tim Simmons
Sharon Barcone
"Tim Simmons" <tim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q3Cg7.1212$OG4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
If you check the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary (http://www.m-w.com) and
look up "art", you will be given a choice of 33 entries. These entries
(which I would refer to as catagories) include clip art, conceptual art,
decorative art, fine art, junk art, op art, pop art, just to name a few.
If you look up "fine art" you will find a reference to both skill and
beauty.
Then look up some of the other entries and see how often the word skill
comes. As one example, conceptual art does not include any reference to
skill.
Check your favorite encyclopedia and you will probably see a reference to
skill and permanence. Do more research and you will frequently run across
the words skill, beauty and permanence.
Even though dictionaries are suppose to provide the definitions of the words
we use and how we use them, the definitions provided are often to some
extent ambiguous. And many here might say beauty in art is an old fashion or
irrelevant concept for fine art today.
If you research enough, you may well come to the conclusion that there is
indeed a distinction between fine art and other forms of art. However due to
the ambiguity in defining fine art and the emotional aspect of those
involved in making art, you may find there are those who disagree.
I might even be lead to say.....no skill, no fine art.
Just a thought.......
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tim Simmons
"Sharon Barcone" <sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote in message
news:3b830...@corp.newsgroups.com...
Tim S.:
Thanks!
Tim
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
The definition I learned years ago was
that fine art did not have the objective
of selling a product. It was pure
exploration of form, colour, composition
etc for no other purpose than it'self.
The problem with that definition is that
most art does not qualify for inclusion
- for example all the religious art is
excluded because the intent is to sell
religion - all commercial art is
excluded because it's intent is to sell
a product.
Mani would say that abstract art is
excluded because it's intent is to sell
non-art crap. You may come to the
conclusion that out of all the millions
of paintings maybe a few would fit under
this definition - I am thinking of a few
starving impressionists - expressionists
that put their soul into their work. In
other words how difficult is it for an
artist produce a painting that does not
have an agenda of some sort?
take care: keith
Tim Simmons
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)" <ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote in
message news:3B830D55...@tinmangallery.com...
Tim S.:
I see your point. Could it be that the problem of classification is the
word 'fine'? Maybe this has become blurred due to the evolution of ideas
and experiments? Commercial art is art that is commissioned or sold in some
way yet wasn't much of the old works commissioned? So, isn't the Sistine
Chapel commercial art?
I'm beginning to think that fine art is that art which (somehow) gets the
thumbs-up over time, regardless of the medium, size, era, style, content,
etc. But, is the majority always right? Also, does longevity equal
fineness?
I know that lines get blurred but I'm just trying to construct my own
working definition here. I have no art training or art history,
appreciation, etc. so I'm just trying to assimilate some opinions. If
anyone gives an opinion that has much by way of support, then I am often
inclined to adopt it myself.
Thanks for the comments.
Tim
RBrac53660
There is no concrete answwer to your question. Just like language in flux so
is the definition of art and our understanding of it. In the western tradition
of art there is a dichotamy between the Platonic view (truth is beatuy) and
Aristotelian view (form follows function). A quick way to think of this is the
battles between the social realist and the romantics. So with this very quick
2 cents worth it really depends on what you want to bring to the art.
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Clara Knett
says...
>There is no concrete answwer to your question. Just like language in flux so
>is the definition of art and our understanding of it.
Geez, a sober answer for a change. Whoops,
just noticed the typo in "answwer"...<g>
I think my definition would have to be
if the work of art would end up in some
museum somewhere at some point. In other
words, "fine art" is something that is
thought of in terms of having value to future
generations. Or someone in this age thinks
it's worth "saving" for future ages by
placing it in a museum where it's more
likely to receive conservatory treatment.
Otherwise, "fine art" is whatever you paid
for and collected yourself to satisfy your
taste for art on your own walls.
ie: a "personal definition" of the term and
a "public one."
Roger
semesters long. No other subject got nearly the amount of intellectual
discussion as "What is art?". After the end of the course, there was
still no consensus. I guess you're on your own.
Andrew Werby
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Simmons" <tim...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:23 AM
Subject: honest questions
> Hello,
>
> I have been asking questions and getting some direct responses but I have
a
> few more. Sure, I could search the net using Google but this is the fine
> art ng, right?
>
> What is the definition of fine art?
[Fine art is whatever an "artist" (self-defined) chooses to call "art" and
put on display. Urinals, bricks, rocks, and other objects have been so
annointed, and it's useless to argue that they aren't art (although that
argument never stops). The "fine" part only has meaning in relationship to
"applied" art, which serves some useful function- fine art generally
doesn't, or that function is secondary to its role as art object. Many
people try to limit the definition of art to contain only "good" art,
meaning art they happen to like, but that's obviously totally subjective and
can't be the basis of a generally-accepted definition. The test of time is
likewise trotted out as an arbiter, but fashions change, and practitioners
of what was considered the best art of its day are downgraded to
kitschmeisters, while many who labored in obscurity- some never even
imagining they were making art in the first place- are elevated to the
heights. The posession of technical skill is regarded by some as making the
difference between a fine artist and a charlatan, but many sincere artists
have achieved wide recognition without showing evidence of posessing any
technical ability whatever, at least in the traditional sense. Novelty,
while it is prized more than heretofore, cannot be adduced as a necessary
ingredient, as many highly-regarded artists spend their careers in treading
well-worn paths, endlessly executing tiny variations on a successful theme.
The intent of an artist is sometimes brought in as a deciding factor, but
who is to say that a given artist was intending purely to make money or had
only disinterested motives, to paint a masterpiece or clean his brushes, to
break new aesthetic ground or just break rocks? We need to accept the
broadest definition of art (given above) and try to move on from there.]
> What are the other categories of art?
[Applied art (see above), good art, meaningful art, political art,
theoretical art, conceptual art, traditional art, - you can write your own
list. More important to decide is what sort of art speaks to you. ]
>
> If fine art has specific attributes which make it fine art, then any art
not
> exhibiting those attributes must, by definition, be excluded from the fine
> art category, correct?
[Right- if an artist doesn't call it art, it's just a urinal; go ahead and
use it for its original purpose...]
Thanks and sorry if these are too basic for some.
>
> Tim Simmons
[It's good to get down to basics once in a while, instead of wasting all our
time manibaiting.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
>
>
>
>
Tim Simmons
"Andrew Werby" <dre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:xxVg7.16$sa.1...@news1.rdc1.sfba.home.com...
Tim S.:
Thanks for the words. Manibaiting. hehehehehehhehehe
Tim
Tim Simmons
"Clara Knett" <ckn...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3b83c...@oracle.zianet.com...
Tim S.:
Well, it seems that the consensus is that there isn't a consensus so I'll
probably go with this idea that it's fine art if I call it that and trash if
I don't think it's good. Works for me.
Thanks!
Tim
William Barkin
"All men are in some degree impressed by the face of the world; some men
even to delight. This love of beauty is Taste. Others have the same love
in such excess, that, not content with admiring, they seek to embody it in
new forms. The creation of beauty is Art."
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Tim Simmons" <tim...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q3Cg7.1212$OG4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Tim Simmons
"William Barkin" <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
news:toa8p9k...@corp.supernews.com...
> I like this quote by Emerson:
> "All men are in some degree impressed by the face of the world; some men
> even to delight. This love of beauty is Taste. Others have the same love
> in such excess, that, not content with admiring, they seek to embody it in
> new forms. The creation of beauty is Art."
>
> -Bill
>
Tim S.:
Very nice.
Tim